Here are 28 contemporary versions of the Bible, John 3:16, including one Catholic Version. They all mean the same thing.

New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

New Living Translation
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

English Standard Version
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Berean Study Bible
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Berean Literal Bible
For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life.

New American Standard Bible
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Christian Standard Bible
For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Contemporary English Version
God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.

Good News Translation
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

International Standard Version
"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

NET Bible
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

New Heart English Bible
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

New American Standard 1977
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

King James 2000 Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

American King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

American Standard Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic)
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Darby Bible Translation
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

English Revised Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Webster's Bible Translation
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Weymouth New Testament
For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.

World English Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Young's Literal Translation
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

=================
The Books are not the problem Zemira.

Difficulties in discussing the Bible experienced by Catholics and Protestants may arise not from lack of Bible knowledge but from different approaches to biblical interpretation.

As I have explained several times that your Pastors or anyone of you, if you are one among them, don't have a UNIFIED translation of the words in the Bible. For instance, currently you have the 47,000 denominations each one doesn’t agree with each other’s interpretation of the words of God from the Bible.

For example, if you listen to more Charismatic Speaker Joel Olsten, his interpretations of the Bible provide some entertainment of focus in how to be blessed with wealth and how to be successful. This kind of worship deviates from the very fundamental prayer of faith, hope, and love is the essence of our worship.

The problems are how the words in the Bible reach the human brain, interpretations vary. With so many denominations now that Protestants have, interpretations of the words of God are taken differently, especially many of them now want to attract more audience.

Some Pastors use psychology, by interpreting how the words of God could make them rich or successful in life. I've listened to the preaching of Joel Olsten once and his approach to talking about the words of God is focused on this.

Now, with 47,000 denominations that Protestants have, each one of them could not arrive at the same conclusion but to each his own, with the goals of attracting more audience or members. It deviated from representing the Scriptures.

"Catholics consider the whole Bible divinely inspired but give a different weight to the Old Testament and the New in matters of doctrine and spiritual guidance. The Catholic principle here is that revelation is progressive up to Christ. In other words, as the people of God moved through history, God worked with us according to our understanding, preparing us gradually for the full revelation in Jesus Christ."

For Catholics, the sacraments, which are biblically rooted, are a path to holiness distinct, but not removed, from the reading of scripture.

Not only since the Catholic Church has the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Traditions from the practice of the Apostles, and the Magisterium. These were all carried forward from the time of Christ's building of His Church thru Saint Peter. Saint Peter was given the ultimate power to keep, teach, and preach how Christ's words are interpreted.
Matthew 16:18-19.

That is why Christ assigned Peter, the 1st Pope to teach His Gospel to have A UNIFIED meaning of His Teachings.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18-19&version=KJV

Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

They aren't Biblically rooted just as so much Catholic doctrine isn't Biblically rooted.

There's no evidence in the Bible that Peter was ever in Rome. When Paul wrote Romans (in AD 56) he never mentioned Peter but he greets a lot of people in chapter 16. If he were the rock or first pope as claimed by Catholicism why would such an important detail be overlooked?

There is no indication in the Bible that Peter had anything to do with Rome. In 1 Peter 1 he calls himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ". In 1 Peter 5 he says "I exhort the elders among you as your fellow elder". Not as a leader but a fellow elder. NEVER did Peter put himself above others. If he had really been a pope he'd have mentioned it.

This one has been pointed out before -
1 Peter 2:5 "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a bspiritual house for a holy priesthood, to doffer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ"

There is no priesthood except a priesthood of believers.

They aren't Biblically rooted just as so much Catholic doctrine isn't Biblically rooted.

There's no evidence in the Bible that Peter was ever in Rome. When Paul wrote Romans (in AD 56) he never mentioned Peter but he greets a lot of people in chapter 16. If he were the rock or first pope as claimed by Catholicism why would such an important detail be overlooked?

There is no indication in the Bible that Peter had anything to do with Rome. In 1 Peter 1 he calls himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ". In 1 Peter 5 he says "I exhort the elders among you as your fellow elder". Not as a leader but a fellow elder. NEVER did Peter put himself above others. If he had really been a pope he'd have mentioned it.

This one has been pointed out before -
1 Peter 2:5 "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a bspiritual house for a holy priesthood, to doffer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ"

There is no priesthood except a priesthood of believers.

========================
Rose and bahmer, you are trying so hard to justify the existence of the debunk 500 year-old, Sola Scriptura, but that has no license to preach, to teach, the Gospel of Christ. Protestant can violate that order of Christ. But still no justification.

You want to lie and lie all the time to justify your Sola, it has no place.
So your Fide, don't lie to me and the world about your UNAUTHORIZED SOLA FIDE.

Here is the history of the Catholic Church ON Matthew 16:18-19
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18-19&version=NIV

Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades, will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.

Here is the history of Saint Peter and Rome.

Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church in the year 33.
Jesus appointed the apostle Peter as the first vicar or pope. Matthew 16:18-19 are the scriptural references Catholics give to support this. "And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven." (KJV)

Around the year A.D. 45, Peter went to Rome and assumed control of the church.
During the persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero, Peter was imprisoned and scourged. He gave his farewell blessing to all of his flock, and especially to Saint Paul, who was going to be beheaded the same day outside Rome.

He was then led to the top of Vatican Mount to be executed by crucifixion. Deeming himself to be unworthy to die in the same position as our Lord, he asked to be crucified upside down. He received his eternal reward on June 29 in the year 67. Two hundred sixty six popes have succeeded Peter since.

For the next 300 years, Rome would begin a serious persecution against the truth. Christians began to meet behind closed doors and gradual changes were made. Elders of the church were known as bishops, and by the close of the third century; each congregation of any size had a bishop as its head, with a group of elders under him. No work was to be done on Sunday.

In 306, Constantine became sole emperor of Rome. His mother Helena became a Christian and urged Constantine to ease up on the persecution of Christians. He decided that Christianity would now be the state religion.

Finding much division in the church, he decided to call a meeting to be held in Nicaea in May 325 A.D. to discuss and unite over the issues that divided the church. Three hundred eighteen bishops assembled and established the Nicene Creed.

=================
The Books are not the problem Zemira.

Difficulties in discussing the Bible experienced by Catholics and Protestants may arise not from lack of Bible knowledge but from different approaches to biblical interpretation.

As I have explained several times that your Pastors or anyone of you, if you are one among them, don't have a UNIFIED translation of the words in the Bible. For instance, currently you have the 47,000 denominations each one doesn’t agree with each other’s interpretation of the words of God from the Bible.

For example, if you listen to more Charismatic Speaker Joel Olsten, his interpretations of the Bible provide some entertainment of focus in how to be blessed with wealth and how to be successful. This kind of worship deviates from the very fundamental prayer of faith, hope, and love is the essence of our worship.

The problems are how the words in the Bible reach the human brain, interpretations vary. With so many denominations now that Protestants have, interpretations of the words of God are taken differently, especially many of them now want to attract more audience.

Some Pastors use psychology, by interpreting how the words of God could make them rich or successful in life. I've listened to the preaching of Joel Olsten once and his approach to talking about the words of God is focused on this.

Now, with 47,000 denominations that Protestants have, each one of them could not arrive at the same conclusion but to each his own, with the goals of attracting more audience or members. It deviated from representing the Scriptures.

"Catholics consider the whole Bible divinely inspired but give a different weight to the Old Testament and the New in matters of doctrine and spiritual guidance. The Catholic principle here is that revelation is progressive up to Christ. In other words, as the people of God moved through history, God worked with us according to our understanding, preparing us gradually for the full revelation in Jesus Christ."

For Catholics, the sacraments, which are biblically rooted, are a path to holiness distinct, but not removed, from the reading of scripture.

Not only since the Catholic Church has the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Traditions from the practice of the Apostles, and the Magisterium. These were all carried forward from the time of Christ's building of His Church thru Saint Peter. Saint Peter was given the ultimate power to keep, teach, and preach how Christ's words are interpreted.
Matthew 16:18-19.

That is why Christ assigned Peter, the 1st Pope to teach His Gospel to have A UNIFIED meaning of His Teachings.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18-19&version=KJV

Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Rose42,

Compost, Compost and more Compost, That's it.

Deny the Historical truth, all you want . . .

To be Deep in History, is to cease to be Protestant . . .



09/21/2015 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520 (Departures from Church Tradition). (Part 3)

Dave Armstrong
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/50-heterodox-beliefs-of-luther-in-1520.html

Original title: “50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/50-heterodox-beliefs-of-luther-in-1520.html


Here is what Luther believed contrary to the Church (without even delving too much into the finer points of soteriology):


1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s
will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and
popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to
Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain
callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to
Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental
influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the
practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any
biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to
determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments:
baptism and the Eucharist).

So that is 50 ways in which Luther was a heretic, heterodox, a schismatic, or believed things which were clearly contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice.

Up to and including truly radical departures (even societally radical in some cases).

Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks?

Or was the Church supposed to say, “yeah, Luther, you know, you’re right about these fifty issues.

You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things.

So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction.

Thanks so much!

We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!”

Is that not patently ridiculous?

What Church would change 50 things in its doctrines because one person feels himself to be some sort of oracle from God or pseudo-prophet:

God’s man for the age?

Yet we are led to believe that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic who only wanted to reform the Church, not overturn or leave it, let alone start a new sect.

He may have been naive or silly enough to believe that himself, but objectively-speaking, it is clear and plain to one and all that what he offered – even prior to 1520 –

Was a radical program; a revolution.

This is not reform.

And the so-called “Protestant Reformation” was not that, either (considered as a whole).

It was a Revolt or a Revolution.

I have just shown why that is.

No sane, conscious person who had read any of his three radical treatises of 1520 could doubt that he had already ceased to be an orthodox Catholic.

He did not reluctantly become so because he was unfairly kicked out of the Church by men who would not listen to manifest Scripture and reason (as the Protestant myth and perpetual propaganda would have it) but because he had chosen himself to accept heretical teachings.

By the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, and had become a radical, intent also on spreading his (sincerely and passionately held) errors across the land with slanderous, mocking, propagandistic tracts and even vulgar woodcuts, if needs be.

Therefore, the Church was entirely sensible, reasonable, within her rights, logical, self-consistent, and not hypocritical or “threatened” in the slightest to simply demand Luther’s recantation of his errors at the Diet of Worms in 1521.

And to refuse to argue with him (having already tried on several occasions, anyway), because to do so would have granted his ridiculous presumption.

That he was in a position to singlehandedly dispute and debate what had been the accumulated doctrinal and theological wisdom of the Church for almost 1500 years.


(End Part 3)

Doc,

Truly, you are creating a unique experience for those of us who remain in our right mind
.
through the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ,

As your madman ravings frame each day in spittle and "Lunatic fringe" pronouncements.

Your failure to offer either compassion to those you've personally consigned to the flame,

or your lack of congratulations to those who will escape it,

are sorely missed by the 1st beseiged group

and add immensely to the hilarity of the latter.

The answer to your title question is an obvious No,

Sola Scriptura, aka, "Scripture alone"

was the means of Martin Luther's eternal salvation -

just as it would be of yours,

had you but the wisdom to understand and accept it.

Again, Radiance,

The New Testament Catholic Bible and what you call the Protestant New Testament, i.e., true Bible believer's New Testament are the same.
For anyone who reads it, it, there is no difference.

There are many different groups of believing Christians.

If you have actually counted them, and found 37,000 or 47,000 or 57,000, I don't care. They love and serve Jesus.

If you disapprove of Joel Osteen, by all means, write and tell him so. I don't care.

God said to let the "tare" grow with the wheat. At the end of the age, He will separate them.

The wheat will spend eternity with Him.

The tare will be burnt up.

If your concern for the tare is so great, pray for them.

Your ranting and raving will accomplish nothing spiritually. It doesn't affect me. I don't care.

You are free to continue to misjudge the Protestants to your heart's content.

Only God can see your heart.

I have stated my belief over and over.

Please carry on.